On Monday, August 5, 2024, US Federal Judge Amit Mehta found that Google violated US antitrust law.
What does this mean for SEO? Probably nothing, at least not for many, many years.
The Ruling.
Judge Mehta‘s decision states Google maintained a monopoly over search services and advertising by violating section 2 of the Sherman Act.
The ruling states “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly…”
US attorney general Merrick Garland called the ruling “a historic win for the American people”. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said “Americans deserve an internet that is free, fair, and open for competition.”
As far as I know, and I’m sure I am missing a lot, the ruling says Google overcharged businesses, hindered other company’s ability to innovate, and lowered quality of Google Ads.
Google Responds (sort of).
Google responded with this over the top statement:
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available. We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”
– Kent Walker, President, Global Affairs
What’s Next? (appeals)
Attorney John Byrne tweeted his opinion on what’s next:
Hiya. Lawyer, litigator and former in house counsel at a fortune 100. Typical cliche is that juries determine facts whereas judges (particularly appellate judges) determine the law (how the law applies to the facts determined).
When there is no jury (as here), the trial judge wears 2 separate hats, both determining facts, and separately, interpreting the laws as applied to those facts.
The trial judge made numerous, well documented findings of fact. And then, having made those findings of fact, he applied the relevant statutes and case laws to reach the conclusion that those facts prove G engaged in certain illegal antitrust behavior.
Appellate courts typically review lower courts interpretations of law de novo – meaning an appellate court can ignore a lower court’s rationale in making an interpretation of law.
But when it comes to findings of fact, it is much more difficult for appellate courts to disregard the trial courts findings of fact; typically requiring a standard of “clearly erroneous” – in other words, it’s really, really really hard to overturn a trial court’s findings of facts.
What I think dooms G in the end is the painstaking detail the trial judge made in his statements of fact finding – again, very hard to overturn on appeal.
Based on those facts he found, as the law currently exists and is interpreted, it’s hard to see how an appellate court reaches a different conclusion. Probably some tweaks to the interpretations here or there – but not seeing anything on first read that would clearly change the final outcome of liability.
So what: (a) think decent chance this exhausts appeals maybe by June 2026; (b) think the decision (G has liability as a monopolist) largely stands. (Of course, anything can happen).
The penalty phase probably won’t start till 2027 at earliest, and that outcome will also get appealed. So no real changes until probably end of this decade.
Recap.
While this is all over Len’s head, Google has spent billions of dollars ensuring their search engine is the default engine on many devices, such as iPhones. This has allowed them, imo, to become / remain the best search product.
This will be in appeals for years. What changes? I’m not sure, but, people are going to keep using Google for the foreseeable future.
